Can CA sell debt after receiving a C&D letter?

[valley_man0505]

I recently wrote a Cease & Desist letter to a CA for a debt that is past SOL.  In fact, I don't believe this debt ever even existed anyway.  In the C&D letter, I also pointed out that many CA's have tried to collect this debt already and not a single one of them has ever been able to prove the debt.  I told them that they needed to delete this file from their records immediately and that they could not sell it to another CA's since there is no proof anywhere of this debt.  I don't know if they really have to abide by this last statement, though.  It is clear, however, that they DID NOT abide by this last statement, however, since I just received another dunning letter from yet another CA for this same debt.

Is there anyway to stop this debt from getting passed from CA to CA for the rest of my life?  Of course, I am not looking for the "pay it and it will go away" advice since this debt never even existed.

[LIGHTNIN]

Unless you can prove this debt is not yours, the CA can keep selling the debt over and over again.

Of course it can only report for the 7.5yrs from the DoFD on the OC account.

As far as I know, they can try to collect on the debt forever until the debt is settled.

(I typed this for the lurkers here on the forums, no intent to make you upset.)

I'm alittle confused....Can you explain, why the debt never even existed?  

ETA. sounds like something you may need an attorney for.

[valley_man0505]

---

@LIGHTNIN wrote:

Unless you can prove this debt is not yours, the CA can keep selling the debt over and over again.

Of course it can only report for the 7.5yrs from the DoFD on the OC account.

As far as I know, they can try to collect on the debt forever until the debt is settled.

(I typed this for the lurkers here on the forums, no intent to make you upset.)

I'm alittle confused....Can you explain, why the debt never even existed?  

ETA. sounds like something you may need an attorney for.

---

The debt they are collecting is for a Citibank credit card, but I don't recall ever having a Citibank credit card.  At the very least, I have never had a Citibank credit card reporting on any of my credit reports.  I had a lot of other derogatory debt when I started cleaning up my credit a few years ago, but there weren't any Citibank tradelines (aside from the Student Loans that I was never late on and am still in the process of paying on time).  I even checked a copy of the very first CR I pulled in 2007 when I first started my cleanup process.

The good news is that if I did ever have a Citibank card that I have no record of, the only time that could have happened is when I was in college when all of my other CCs got CO'd, which would mean it would be beyond SOL and CRTP.  Still gets annoying to keep getting dunning letters for it.  Ironically, I get more dunning letters for this one than I get for the actual, legitimate CC debts that I did have from back then--I don't get anything from them anymore.

[llecs]

Unfortunately a C&D won't stop them from selling the debt. They feel the debt is valid, but if it keeps getting sold over and over, sounds like they have little to run on especially if past CRTP and SOL. BTW, if both had expired, and I know it is tough to figure that out if nothing reports, then ignore the letters.

[Booner72]

---

LIGHTNIN wrote:

Unless you can prove this debt is not yours, the CA can keep selling the debt over and over again.

Of course it can only report for the 7.5yrs from the DoFD on the OC account.

---

Hi Lightnin- are you saying that once 7.5 years go by from the DOFD, then no CA can report it ever again?  But they can still try and collect on it forever and ever, amen?

[Anonymous]

---

@Booner72 wrote:

---

@LIGHTNIN wrote:

Unless you can prove this debt is not yours, the CA can keep selling the debt over and over again.

Of course it can only report for the 7.5yrs from the DoFD on the OC account.

---

Hi Lightnin- are you saying that once 7.5 years go by from the DOFD, then no CA can report it ever again?  But they can still try and collect on it forever and ever, amen?

---

Yup.  They can try to collect until the end of time.

The only way to stop them from being able to sell the debt to a continual long line of CA scumbags is via a claim of ID theft. 

[phoenician]

How fair is this?

This, along with several other things, shows there is still some work to be done in the banking/credit world. This guilty until proven innocent thing has GOT to go. Accusers have far too much power (e.g. you have 30 days to ask for DV, but CA can take 10,000 years if they want) and the burden of proof has GOT to be on them. Right now it's basically like any idiot company can say "oh, you owe us money," and unless you can prove it with hardcore evidence, you're screwed. Original contract with SSN and signature really needs to be absolutely required. It's their fault if they have archiving problems, not ours. The whole "name, original creditor, and amount" thing is WAY too flimsy.

[Anonymous]

---

@phoenician wrote:

How fair is this?

This, along with several other things, shows there is still some work to be done in the banking/credit world. This guilty until proven innocent thing has GOT to go. Accusers have far too much power (e.g. you have 30 days to ask for DV, but CA can take 10,000 years if they want) and the burden of proof has GOT to be on them. Right now it's basically like any idiot company can say "oh, you owe us money," and unless you can prove it with hardcore evidence, you're screwed. Original contract with SSN and signature really needs to be absolutely required. It's their fault if they have archiving problems, not ours. The whole "name, original creditor, and amount" thing is WAY too flimsy.

---

Yes, things need to be changed.

But it isn't going to happen in your lifetime.

[phoenician]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@phoenician wrote:

How fair is this?

This, along with several other things, shows there is still some work to be done in the banking/credit world. This guilty until proven innocent thing has GOT to go. Accusers have far too much power (e.g. you have 30 days to ask for DV, but CA can take 10,000 years if they want) and the burden of proof has GOT to be on them. Right now it's basically like any idiot company can say "oh, you owe us money," and unless you can prove it with hardcore evidence, you're screwed. Original contract with SSN and signature really needs to be absolutely required. It's their fault if they have archiving problems, not ours. The whole "name, original creditor, and amount" thing is WAY too flimsy.

---

Yes, things need to be changed.

But it isn't going to happen in your lifetime.

---

Not with the way things are now, no. Changes of this type are measured in epochs.

[Anonymous]

---

@phoenician wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@phoenician wrote:

How fair is this?

This, along with several other things, shows there is still some work to be done in the banking/credit world. This guilty until proven innocent thing has GOT to go. Accusers have far too much power (e.g. you have 30 days to ask for DV, but CA can take 10,000 years if they want) and the burden of proof has GOT to be on them. Right now it's basically like any idiot company can say "oh, you owe us money," and unless you can prove it with hardcore evidence, you're screwed. Original contract with SSN and signature really needs to be absolutely required. It's their fault if they have archiving problems, not ours. The whole "name, original creditor, and amount" thing is WAY too flimsy.

---

Yes, things need to be changed.

But it isn't going to happen in your lifetime.

---

Not with the way things are now, no. Changes of this type are measured in epochs.

---

You are, my friend, unfortunately correct.

Just watch how they will probably ultimately gut the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Sad.  Very sad.